Cosmology; Elements of a Critique of the Sciences and of Cosmology by Fernand Renoirte, Sc. D., Ph. D. (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 501 resume, the function of the transcendental subject might appear less impor~ lant than it is for the understanding of Kantian idealism. However, little is left to be said on this point after the classical studies by R. Kroner (Von Kant bis Hegel, Tiibingen, Hl~l) and P. Lachieze-Rey (L'Idealisme Kantien) . One might find Paton's mathematical information somewhat insufficient in dealing with Kant's treatment of mathematical judgments, but this remark ought not to detract from the solid value of Paton's Commentary. This work is exact and extremely useful to anyone hoping to understand the thought of the philosopher of Konigsberg. One may express the hope that it will have a well-deserved welcome, not only among Kantians, but also among scholastics, for it gives the latter less excuse for their notorious ignorance or misunderstanding of Kant's theory of knowledge. Collegio Pontificio di S. Anselmo, Rome, Italy St. Anselm's Priory, Washington, D. C. REv. DoM GABRIEL BuKI, 0. s. B. REv. DoM GREGORY STEVENs, 0. S. B. Cosmology; Elements of a Critique of the Sciences and of Cosmology. By FERNAND RENOIRTE, Sc. D., Ph. D.; translated by JAMES T. CoFFEY, Ph. D., S. T. D.; New York: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1950. Pp. ~67 with index. $3.50. The recent healthy reinterest of scholasticism in the relations between philosophy and the sciences has taken a twofold bent: (1) an attempt to integrate the sciences with cosmology and to investigate the problems proper to both; and U~) an attempt to define the proper material and formal objects of the sciences and of the philosophy of nature. The latter procedure is, of course, fundamentally necessary before any fruitful correlation can occur. In order to afford a clue as to the proper procedure in any attempted correlation, Canon Fernand Renoirte, Sc. D., Ph. D., of Louvain University, has written the work: Critique des Sciences et de Cosmologie. The English title is: Cosmology; Elements of a Critique of the Sciences and of Cosmology . The importance of this translation of the title will be seen later. This work, in keeping with the author's intent, is more an indication of the direction of definition and criticism, than a complete evaluation of the relations of the sciences to the philosophy of nature. Perhaps of prime importance in the work is that the author shows the necessarily progressive and schematic character of the logic of the sciences, as opposed to the analytically abstractive method necessary to any philosophical discipline. 50~ BOOK REVIEWS To do this, Professor Renoirte divides his work into three sections: (1) an investigation and critique of some scientific problems; (~) a critique of the method and contents of the sciences; (3) an investigation and critique of the main problems in cosmology. The first section begins with the outmoded concept, of a century ago, that .chemistry was the science of essential properties and transformations of matter. The former point gave rise to the discovery of new elements. The latter problem, faced as it was with the fact of evidently preferential tendencies in the combinations of elements and transformations of componds , gave rise to the definition of the elements by properties, and the attribution of characteristics to atoms and molecules. Weaknesses in classification by properties-such properties as isotopy, radiation, variations of weight in a constancy of mass (and vice versa) -led, in turn, to (I) the valancy theory, or classification by atomic weight; (~) classification by atomic number; {3) the attribution of definite particles and properties to an extremely complex atom; and (4) the suggested possibility that all atoms might be synthesis from hydrogen. This section is not deep science. However, it is valuable insofar as it presents, clearly and interestingly, a good example of the logic of the sciences: how phenomena suggest answers, which, in turn, open up other problems. The second section,,on the other hand, is a critique of the method itself. It shows the importance of measurement, mathematical associations, and definition by instruments. It shows the necessity of scl,lematic correlation and attribution of properties, which factor automatically differentiates the sciences from the intensive insight of the discipline of philosophy. This is the most valuable...